Cisco is also implementing Netconf - it¹s available on XR today, and it will be available on other platforms as well.
For OpenDaylight, we chose Yang as the IDL to describe internal and external APIs in the controller and so far it has served its purpose really well. Also, as Tom pointed out, Netconf and Restconf have also been implemented in ODL. I¹d like to stress that we not only have multiple Netconf/Restconf implementations from multiple vendors (Brocade, Juniper, Cisco, just to mention those on this thread), but have multiple open source implementations as well. In addition to ODL, there is libnetconfd and a few others. ODL / libnetconfd interop testing is done in the ODL regression test suite. Now, since there are multiple independent open source implementations, we¹ve got a good ecosystem for implementation of new Netconf/Restconf/Yang features that may be required to meet i2rs¹s needs (if the need to evolve the protocols/language arises). In short, +1 for Netconf/Restconf for the i2rs protocol and for Yang as the modeling language. Thanks, Jan On 4/18/14, 6:17 AM, "Dean Bogdanovic" <[email protected]> wrote: >Jamal, > >Here are two criteria to be considered: >1. technical >2. commercial/business > >We can discuss pros and cons for both, but have to state that from >business perspective for Juniper going with RESTCONF/YANG make more >sense. We already built the Junos model in YANG and >have or are in process of building needed tools. Same goes for RESTCONF. >We have NETCONF implemented in Junos and are working on RESTCONF >implementation. >Many carriers adopted or are adopting NETCONF/YANG, are looking into >RESTCONF as well, so this looks like a low hanging fruit from business >perspective. > >Looking at technical aspect, unless there is a very compelling reason >(and there might be, but I'm not aware of it), don't see reason to switch >from RESTCONF and YANG. >We can find out down the line that RESTCONF/YANG was the wrong way to go, >but that can be always changed. From my perspective it looks right today. > >Just to be clear, I vote for RESTCONF/YANG adoption for i2rs. > >Dean > >On Apr 18, 2014, at 7:27 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ok, since nobody is saying anything i'll bite. >> How would you like for this discussion to proceed? >> >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Edward Crabbe <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Dear I2RSers, >>> >>> At the last I2RS WG meeting there was a great deal of conversation >>> regarding selection of both modeling language and underlying transport >>> protocol. Consensus at the time was to make use of Yang and (NetConf >>>or >>> RestConf) (unclear). >>> >> >> And i believe the view, as correctly presented by you, is for folks to >>go back >> and make educated decisions by actually getting knowledgeable about >> the different views presented. "Consensus" that you described above >> to me looked like a pageant popularity contest not based on anything >> technical ("who likes contestant in the blue shirt? please cheer for >>them"). >> >> In my opinion i dont think the requirements are clear. >> >> Will that get the crickets stop chirping? >> >> cheers, >> jamal >> >>> Before coming to a final consensus, we'd like to give people adequate >>>time >>> to review source material, marshall arguments and discuss on the >>>mailing >>> list. To this end, we're asking that interested parties do just this >>>over >>> the course of the next ~two weeks. Following that period, on 4/28, >>>we'll be >>> initiating a consensus call that will last an additional two weeks, >>>with the >>> aim of converging modeling language / protocol by Friday, 5/9. >>> >>> The consensus call should also generate proposals for any material >>>changes >>> required to the underlying protocols. These proposals in turn will >>>form the >>> basis for a later draft including gap analysis and said changes. Those >>> strongly in favor of one protocol over another should be prepared to >>> contribute to this analysis. >>> >>> >>> best, >>> >>> -ed >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> i2rs mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> i2rs mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >i2rs mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
